The question was then taken on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion to refer the memorial to a Committee of the whole House, and carriedayes 53. The SPEAKER inquired for what day it should be made the order. Mr. RANDOLPH said, to-day. The question was taken on Mr. GRISWOLD'S motion, and lost-ayes 38, noes 51. Mr. HUGER moved that it should be the order for Monday. It must be evident, that the members had not yet sufficiently attended to the subject to be prepared for a decision. It was a very different question from that decided the last session. It certainly required some little time to enable gentlemen to revolve it in their minds. It was not usual to force decisions in that way. If it was the object of gentlemen merely to vote it out, a majority must do as they please; but if they were disposed to pay it ordinary respect, they certainly could not urge so precipitate a discussion. Mr. RANDOLPH asked if it were in order, after the question had been taken, to name another day. He said he would not have urged an immediate consideration of the memorial, but for the conviction that the subject, in all its bearings, had undergone the maturest investigation, not only of every member on that floor, but of every thinking man in the United States. The SPEAKER decided that the moving another day was not in order. The question on going into a Committee of the Whole this day, was then carried without a division. Whereupon, Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House should go into committee immediately. The SPEAKER said the unfinished business of yesterday would be the first acted upon unless postponed. Mr. RANDOLPH moved the postponement of the unfinished business till to-morrow. Carried. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the memorial-Mr. DAWSON in the chair. The memorial of William Tilghman was read; which was accompanied by ten other verbatim memorials, signed by Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith, Richard Bassett, Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William Griffiths. Mr. GRISWOLD said, he did not think it proper to enter into an extensive discussion of the memorial. The haste with which the consideration of it was urged, appeared to him indicative of a disposition to reject it altogether. Under such circumstances discussion would be useless. At the same time, he would remark, that it involved a question very different from that decided at the last session. It had, then, been decided that the Legislature had the constitutional right to deprive the judges of all Judicial power; but the question never was settled, that, notwithstanding the judges should [H. OF R. be deprived of all their Judicial powers, they were not entitled to the compensation guaranteed by the constitution. This involved a distinct point, which ought not to be hastily acted upon. The judges had never been heard before Congress on this question. They had a right by the constitution to be heard, and to be heard by counsel, he presumed, if they desired it. He had thought the House would have given time for them to be heard. But they had determined to proceed immediately. He should, therefore, be ontent with moving two resolutions. Mr. GRISWOLD here read his resolutions as follows: Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law to define the powers to be exercised by the judges of the circuit courts of the United States, who were appointed under an act, entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States." Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of the circuit court to their compensations. Mr. RANDOLPH said, the provision desired by the gentleman from Connecticut already exists. The Legislature has defined the powers of the late circuit judges, and has decided that they shall not execute any powers. Those powers are transferred to other courts. Unless the House had changed their opinion, it was not necessary to go into any discussion on this point. The readiest and fairest course for gentlemen would be to propose to repeal the law of the last session, and restore the judges. The question was then taken on the first resolution, and lost-ayes 34, noes 56. The CHAIRMAN then read the second resolution, as follows: Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of the circuit court to their compensations. Mr. RANDOLPH said he was not ready for the question. He had one or two remarks to offer, which had suggested themselves during the reading of the resolution. It had been repeatedly decided that the United States would not permit themselves to be brought into their own courts. Wherefore grant to a particular class of persons, in a single case, that which had ever been refused to the war-worn soldier of the Revolution; especially when it should be recollected that this case, involving the interests of judges, as a caste, could not be decided by any judicial tribunal free from bias? A doctrine is advanced new to this House, which I have been told originated with an eminent character on the bench of the United States; I did not hear the gentleman from Connecticut distinctly, but I understand him as subscribing to it; that Congress may, constitutionally, deprive a judge of all authority, and transfer to another his powers and duties, but that the office nevertheless remains, and the judge, of course, entitled to his compensation. The constitution says that "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, for H. OF R.] Memorial of United States Judges. their services, receive a compensation." With-| out entering into a question which has already been so fully discussed, he would barely remark, that if the position just advanced be correct, the words "compensation" and "office," which the constitution supposes, and every one believes, to have distinct and different meanings, must be convertible terms. For when the powers and duties are taken away, what, let me ask, is left but a salary? The word office must be rendered by the word salary. Mr. DANA. The question of compensation to the judges involved considerations very distinct from those ordinarily decided upon in that House. Most of the individual cases brought here were made in pursuance of some particular law, and did not call in question the authority of Congress. If the case of the judges were to be referred to any tribunal, the right to refer was founded on the principle of controlling the decisions of the Legislature in case those decisions should appear to the tribunal to be unconstitutional. It was, therefore, in this view not proper to refer the question to a tribunal dependent on the body to be controlled. This was the only course that would probably be deemed impartial by all the parties concerned. JANUARY, 1803. Mr. NICHOLSON.-The resolution contemplated giving the power to try the right of the judges to their claims; but the great object in reality was to authorize the judges of the Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of the repealing act. Let this object, then, be avowed; let it be so declared openly, and not introduced in this incidental manner. From the remarks made last year by gentlemen on the other side of the House, it was a little surprising that this application should be made, for it was then strenuously contended that the Supreme Court had the right to decide upon the constitutionality of all laws. Why, then, ask for it? If they have this right we need not confer it; if they have it not, we cannot give it them. If the petitioning judges can bring their case before the Supreme Court, let them do so; my consent shall never authorize it. If the Supreme Court shall arrogate this power to themselves, and declare our law to be unconstitutional, it will then behoove us to act. Our duty is defined. Mr. EUSTIS said when the office of judge was abolished all his duties ceased. The salary allowed was a compensation for services. Now when there were no services to be performed, what salary could there be allowed, or what reMr. BACON said the true question was on the tribution demanded? on what did this claim constitutionality of the repealing law. One rest? On the opinion of the judges. But by Congress had passed a law constituting certain the decision of the last winter their offices were courts, which at the last session had been re- abolished; it followed, therefore, of consequence, pealed. Now of what do courts consist? Of that their salaries ceased too. This was a plain judges, who are officers of the court. The ques- and simple question. He considered the metion is, whether by abolishing the courts, these morial as the protest of the judges against this officers are abolished. He supposed they were. decision. As such, he was willing that it should He considered the terms as synonymous. Now rest on the files of the House, and instead of the question is whether, if the offices are abol-being offended at this treatment the judges ished, those who filled them before they were ought to be thankful. abolished are entitled to salaries? That is the only question that remains undetermined. What does the constitution say? Admitting the offices abolished, it says: "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Does it not follow that if they continue in office they are entitled to a salary for the services they perform. If they do not continue in office they are entitled to nothing, and the constitution has no reference to them. This is the true question. Mr. SMILIE Would ask whether the Supreme Court in such a case as this could be denominated an impartial tribunal? He asked if they had not seen the time when, during the disputes between the clergy and laity, no wise man, not of the clerical order, would have trusted himself in the hands of the clergy? The same remark applied to the military, and also, with equal force, to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He really, however, thought that the judges would not receive the salaries, even if they were offered to them, as it would be contrary to every idea of patriotism. He, therefore, considered the application as a mere matter of form. Mr. DANA said the ideas of the gentleman from Massachusetts were in one respect correct. The memorial of the judges was a protest against the law passed by Congress. It was proper they should make it, so far as they eonfined themselves to language not indecorous or disrespectful. He would admit likewise that the question of powers decided the question of salary; others however entertained a different opinion. Why object then, in a case where there was a difference of opinion, to refer the decision to an impartial tribunal? The only question is whether in a contest for power, you, the Legislature, will claim the exclusive exercise of power, and whether, even if you shall exceed the constitutional limits, you will assert the entire right of saying so, or whether you will refer it to a tribunal which shall be an umpire between those who hold different opinions? Mr. ALSTON said the resolution required amendment. As it now stood, it would appear that all the late judges of the circuit court claimed a compensation for services not rendered. He believed this was not the case. There were some of those judges who had made no such request. He, therefore, moved to insert the name of those who had presented memorials; also to insert the word "late" before the word “judges.” JANUARY, 1803.] Carried without a division. Presents to a Minister's Wife. The resolution as amended stood thus: [H. OF R liam Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Bassett, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Resolved, That provision ought to be made by Egbert Benson, Philip B. Key, William Griffith, Jerlaw for submitting to judicial decision the right of Wil-emiah Smith, and George K. Taylor, ought not to be liam Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith, granted; and that the petitioners have leave to withRichard Bassett, Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, draw their petitions. Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William Griffiths, late judges of the circuit court appointed under an act entitled "An YEAS.-Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, act to provide for the more convenient organization of Phanuel Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert the courts of the United States passed on the thir-Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas teenth day of February, 1801;" which said act was repealed at the last session of Congress, to their compensations. On which the question being put, it was lost -ayes 35, noes 57. Mr. VARNUM observed that the memorial contained two principles, both of which had been negatived. To draw the attention to a final decision he would move another resolution, to wit: Resolved, That the prayer of the petition of William Tilghman and others, (naming them,) late judges of the circuit courts of the United States, ought not to be granted, and that the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petitions. Mr. T. MORRIS moved that the committee should rise and report progress, that the petition might be printed. Negatived without a division. The resolution was then carried without a division, when the committee rose and reported it. The House immediately took it into consideration; when Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the words, "late judges of the circuit courts of the United States." Mr. GRISWOLD said he presumed it was not the object to expunge all evidence of these gentlemen being judges, or late judges of the circuit courts of the United States, and yet that would appear to be the effect of the motion. He must, therefore, call for the yeas and nays, which would make that fact be recorded on the journals. Mr. RANDOLPH said he had made the motion that the resolution might conform to the prayer of the petition. Had the memorialists called themselves late judges, he should have had no objection to their being so designated in the resolution. His wish was to style them in the resolution as they had styled themselves. Mr. GRISWOLD said, though they had not expressly styled themselves circuit judges, yet they had stated that they had been appointed circuit judges under a law of the United States. They had therefore virtually so styled themselves. A few words were added by Mr. EUSTIS against it, and by Messrs. RANDOLPH and NICHOLSON in favor of striking out the words, when the question was taken by yeas and nays and carried yeas 50, nays 47. And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House, amended to read as follows: It was resolved in the affirmative, yeas 61, nays 37, as follows: Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, NAYS.-Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh FRIDAY, January 28. Presents to a Minister's Wife. Mr. SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Col. Humphreys, late Minister at the Court of Madrid, stating that, when he was about to leave that Court, the Minister of State urged his acceptance of the customary present from His Majesty. Col. Humphreys informed him that he could not, consistently with the constitution of his Government, accept the present. The Minister continued to press the acceptance, and urged that as he was no longer an officer of the United States, there could be no impropriety in his receiving it. Col. H. replied that, though he was then out of office, there would still, in his opinion, be an indelicacy in the acceptance, and that if he should receive the present designed for him, he should consider it as his duty to deliver it into the hands of the President of the United States, to be disposed of at the pleasure of the Government. Under these circumstances he left the Court of Madrid; and upon his arrival in the United Resolved, That the prayer of the petitions of Wil- States, he found a casket of valuable female H. OF K.] French Spoliations. [FEBRUARY, 1803. Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law, to indemnify the citizens of the United States who, in carrying on a lawful trade to foreign parts, suffered losses by the seizure of their property made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French cruiser, without sufficient cause, in violation of the rights of American commerce, during the late war between Great Britain and the French Republic, and whose claims for indemnity against the said Republic were renounced by the United States, by their acceptance of the ratification of the treaty lately made with France. ornaments addressed to Mrs. Humphreys, which, | discussion. In order to meet the ideas of though unaccompanied by any letter, he pre- gentlemen who desired, in the first instance, to sumed to be a present from the Queen of Spain. decide the principle whether indemnity ought to Doubting the propriety of accepting it under be made to our merchants, he submitted the such circumstances, Mrs. Humphreys presented following resolution: the casket to the President of the United States, who put it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State declining to decide the constitutional question, whether Mr. Humphreys could with propriety retain it, ordered it to be returned to him for the purpose of being sent back to Spain, or otherwise disposed of as he may think proper. Mr. Humphreys refused to receive it back on such terms: it consequently remains with the chief clerk in the Department of State, and Mr. H. now requests Congress to give orders for sending it back to Spain, or for disposing of it in such other way as they may think proper. He makes the same request respecting a sword sented him by the Dey of Algiers, which is also in the hands of the chief clerk of the Department of State, under similar circumstances. pre The subject, after considerable conversation in the House, was referred to a select committee to report their opinion thereon. Mr. BAYARD moved the taking up the resolution for consideration; on which the House divided-yeas 39, nays 45. Resolution ordered to lie on the table. and the House remained with closed doors till About 3 o'clock the galleries were cleared, 4 o'clock, when they adjourned. WEDNESDAY, February 2. Mr. HILL called for the order of the day on the bill to prohibit the importation of certain in-persons, whose admission is prohibited by laws Resolved, That a committee be appointed to quire by what means the value or amount of property taken from citizens of the United States by the French during the late war in Europe can be best ascertained, and the several sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and report thereon to this House, to the end that indemnification be made." Mr. BAYARD offered an amendment, which was agreed to, striking out the latter part of the resolution, and instructing the committee to report their opinion whether indemnification shall be made. After a very desultory debate on referring the resolution to a Committee of the Whole, or to a select committee, and the rejection of a motion of reference to a Committee of the Whole, the question was taken on the resolution as amended, which was determined in the negative-ayes 34, noes 39. The House adjourned. MONDAY, January 31. Another member, to wit, JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House. French Spoliations. Mr. BAYARD observed that a resolution offered some days since by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. MITCHILL,) of considerable national, and of great individual importance to a large description of citizens, appeared to him to have been disagreed to more from considerations of form than substance; as the merits of the subject were not, on that occasion, brought into ❘ of the States. Mr. BAYARD requested the gentleman to waive his call for one moment, to enable the House to take his resolution respecting French spoliations, laid some days since on the table, into consideration for the sole purpose of giving it a proper disposition. His object, some days since, when he called it up, was to have it referred to a Committee of the whole House, not to urge its discussion on that day. His object was now the same, and his sole wish was that it should be referred, and a day named for its be voted down now, as it then was, without consideration. As, however, said Mr. B., it may any reasons being assigned, gentlemen will excuse me for calling the yeas and nays. I hope gentlemen will so far at least comply with the forms of justice as to suffer the case to be considered, whatever may be their ultimate decision upon it. Mr. RANDOLPH said he would ask the gentleman from Delaware, whether he had seen any indisposition in that House to discuss the subject? For his part he had seen none, either in the House or in any individual member. He felt no objection to take up the subject at any time, and to discuss, or rather to hear the gentleman from Delaware discuss it. He hoped, therefore, the gentleman would not persist in taking up the time of the House by calling the yeas and nays. Mr. BAYARD said he had seen an indisposition in the House to discuss the subject; and the reason why the gentleman from Virginia had not seen it was, that he was not in his place on FEBRUARY, 1803.] French Spoliations. [H. OF R. the day he had before moved that the resolu- | on the files of this House. Is it then for this tion should be taken up. Had he been in his place, he would have seen that a motion to take it into consideration had been rejected without a single reason being assigned. But under the assurance of the gentleman, that there was no aversion to consider the subject, he would waive his call for the yeas and nays. Mr. RANDOLPH said he spoke only for him self. Mr. BAYARD replied that he then persisted in the call. The yeas and nays were then taken on taking up the resolution; and were-yeas 65, nays 26. The resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole without opposition. House to say they will not attend to the petitions of our citizens? For what do we ask? Simply for a discussion, and that a decision shall not be made until those who consider themselves aggrieved shall be heard. Are gentlemen unwilling to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to an act of justice? But I will abstain from going into the merits of the subject. I will only repeat that there is no petition, however worthless, but the House pays it a decent respect, by referring it, and allowing time for its examination. Will they then, in a case of such magnitude as this, where there are so many claims, so variously characterized, will they refuse this ordinary measure of respect? I will expect a different decision from the justice When Mr. BAYARD moved that it be made the and candor of the House. order for Monday next. Mr. R. WILLIAMS moved the 3d of March. Mr. GREGG thought it was best to take the resolution up fairly and decide it at once. Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he was willing to meet it fairly, but he thought one day sufficient for the investigation. Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he would withdraw his motion, and move that the subject be made the order of the day, for the first day of March, which would allow sufficient time for a full and fair investigation. Mr. SMILIE did not know what the gentleman from Delaware meant, when he said we were not Mr. HUGER had no hesitation in saying this willing to trust our consciences. He hoped every was a question of great moment, and one well gentleman had as good a conscience as the genworthy of the deliberate attention of the House. tleman himself. For his own part, if there was To be sure, if there was a great press of impor- time to discuss this subject, he would be willing tant business, he would acquiesce in its post- to hear it discussed, and it would then appear ponement. But this was not the case. There who brought the merchants into their misforwas no business before the House of pressing tunes, and who occasioned their losses. But, as importance. He was in favor of a fair and full he believed there was not now time, he thought investigation of the subject. The motion to it best to postpone the consideration of the make it the order of the day for the last day of subject until the next session, when it would the session, when the press of other business fully appear who had been the friends, and would absolutely preclude any attention to it, who the enemies of our merchants. In the was tantamount to a refusal of all investigation mean time he would only add that he would whatever. Unless the motion was with-never be one of those who would consent to tax drawn, he would, therefore, call for the yeas and nays. Mr. BACON said his mind preponderated against the claim. But to him it appeared that a postponement to such a day, would be the same as declaring the claim should not be attended to. If the claim should be sustained by the vote of the House, it would surely require more than one day to make the necessary arrangements for carrying it into the shape of a law. the agricultural interests of the country to pay the merchants. Mr. RUTLEDGE observed that it was important that our merchants should be extricated from their present embarrassments. They wish to know the disposition of Congress on their claims. This cannot be done if the present motion obtain; for the subject, in that event, will be disposed of this session precisely as it was the last. It was then referred, at an early period, to a committee with whom it slept until near the close of the session, when a report, merely of facts, was made. The report was then made at a late day of the session, and the House never took it up. It is now proposed to be postponed until a very late day of this session, and it will then not be taken up. Mr. BAYARD.-No doubt the observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts is correct, that a postponement to the last day of the session is, in effect, precisely the same as to reject the claim altogether. Gentlemen ought to consider that our sole object is to bring into discussion the claims of our citizens. I do not Whatever the opinions of some gentlemen undertake to express any opinion of the validity may be, it is a fact that many honorable and unof the claims. No member on the floor is less fortunate merchants are now struggling with personally or locally interested than I am. But their misfortunes, produced by French spoliaI do think that no claim whatever, of the tions, whom the hope of relief from Government meanest nature, should be decided upon until the has saved from ruin. They wish to know their party is heard. Many of our citizens, who have fate, and no longer to be kept in suspense. Let incurred losses, suppose they have an equitable their claims then be decided at once; and if genclaim on the Government. The claims have been tlemen are ready to say they shall not be inannounced in the public papers, and in petitions | demnified for losses, which, but for the renun |